Inspector of Police, Sempatty Ps vs A1-Shankar — 381/2025

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 307(2),506(ii),114,115,120(B). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th April 2026.

Case disposed

SC - Sessions Case

CNR: TNDG030000522026

Filing Number

51/2026

Filing Date

16-Dec-2025

Registration No

381/2025

Registration Date

16-Dec-2025

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindugul

Judge

3-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

18-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

325

Police Station

Palani Taluk P.S

Year

2010

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 307(2),506(ii),114,115,120(B)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Inspector of Police, Sempatty Ps (Police Station)

    Adv. Public Prosecutor

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.A1-Shankar

  2. 2.A2-Raja

  3. 3.A3-SIvanandi (died)

  4. 4.A4-Maruthaiah

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: S.C.No.381/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Shankar, Raja, and Maruthaiya) under IPC Sections 120(B), 307, 114, and 115, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Facts: On 20.08.2010, a stabbing incident occurred in a private bus on the Dindigul-Sithathrevu route. The complainant (bus conductor Rajaaram) and another conductor (Sejayaram) were stabbed with a knife, allegedly by three accused in a premeditated attack. The prosecution claimed the attackers were motivated by prior disputes. A third accused (Sivanandi) died during proceedings, so charges against him were abated. Critical Reasoning: The court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's case: (1) The two injured witnesses could not identify the other accused and contradicted each other on how many attackers participated; (2) No independent eyewitness testimony established the accused's involvement; (3) Confessional statements were obtained under questionable circumstances; and (4) Evidence collection procedures lacked proper documentation. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused, declaring them "not guilty" and ordering their release under CrPC Section 235(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 06-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  6. 27-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Questioning

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  8. 24-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 17-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  11. 10-Mar-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 26-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  13. 26-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 12-Feb-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  15. 12-Feb-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  16. 29-Jan-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 29-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 19-Jan-2026

    Service Pending-Summon

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 05-Jan-2026

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 02-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  21. 16-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 381/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: S.C.No.381/2025 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused (Shankar, Raja, and Maruthaiya) under IPC Sections 120(B), 307, 114, and 115, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Key Facts: On 20.08.2010, a stabbing incident occurred in a private bus on the Dindigul-Sithathrevu route. The complainant (bus conductor Rajaaram) and another conductor (Sejayaram) were stabbed with a knife, allegedly by three accused in a premeditated attack. The prosecution claimed the attackers were motivated by prior disputes. A third accused (Sivanandi) died during proceedings, so charges against him were abated. Critical Reasoning: The court found serious deficiencies in the prosecution's case: (1) The two injured witnesses could not identify the other accused and contradicted each other on how many attackers participated; (2) No independent eyewitness testimony established the accused's involvement; (3) Confessional statements were obtained under questionable circumstances; and (4) Evidence collection procedures lacked proper documentation. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt to the accused, declaring them "not guilty" and ordering their release under CrPC Section 235(1). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case